Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding ... · Pittman-Robertson Wildlife...

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act:

Understanding Apportionments for States and

Territories

April 5, 2019

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R45667


SUMMARY

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding Apportionments for States and Territories The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.), enacted in 1937 and now

known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, provides funding for states and

territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety

programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior,

administers Pittman-Robertson. All 50 states (but not the District of Columbia) as well as the 5 inhabited U.S. territories

receive Pittman-Robertson funds.

Funding for FWS to carry out Pittman-Robertson

programs comes from excise taxes on firearms,

ammunition, and archery equipment. Receipts

from these excise taxes are deposited into the

Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in the

Treasury, and monies from the fund are made

available for FWS in the fiscal year following their

collection without any further action by Congress.

Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed

$18.8 billion (in 2018 dollars) for wildlife

restoration and hunter education and safety

activities for Pittman-Robertson programs.

FWS apportions and disburses funds to states and

territories through three formula-based programs:

Wildlife Restoration (known as Section 4(b)),

Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)),

and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants

(Section 10). FWS also allocates non-formula

funding for multistate conservation grants and program administration. State apportionments for wildlife restoration projects

are based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. State population is used to

determine apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. FWS also apportions

funding for territories. For Wildlife Restoration, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5% of the apportionments made under

the act and American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands each

receive not more than 0.17%. Each territory receives 0.17% of the total apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced

Hunter Education and Safety programs.

Amending Pittman-Robertson is of perennial interest to some in Congress. Members routinely consider legislation to amend

how states and territories may use their Pittman-Robertson apportionments, sources of funding to support Pittman-Robertson,

and the Pittman-Robertson apportionment formulas. Issues of interest have included whether Pittman-Robertson funds should

be available for hunter recruitment and retention activities and the amount available for the expansion or construction of

public shooting ranges. Because Pittman-Robertson derives its funding through an excise tax on shooting and archery

equipment, the number of people participating in these and related activities influences the amount of available funding for

these programs. This, in turn, can lead some to consider issues related to funding sources and whether the existing revenue

sources derived from excise taxes on shooting and archery equipment should be modified. Other issues that Congress has

addressed include whether to modify the existing apportionment structure, including whether to amend how funding is

apportioned for states and territories.

R45667

April 5, 2019

R. Eliot Crafton Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Understanding Pittman-Robertson Apportionments for States and Territories


Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Revenues and Apportionments ........................................................................................................ 1

Revenues ................................................................................................................................... 4 State and Territory Apportionment ............................................................................................ 5

Wildlife Restoration Program ............................................................................................. 8 Hunter Education and Safety Programs ............................................................................ 12

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 15

Eligible Uses ........................................................................................................................... 15 Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion ............................................................................ 15 Shooting Ranges ............................................................................................................... 16

Funding Sources and Structure ............................................................................................... 18 Apportionment Formulas ........................................................................................................ 20

Figures

Figure 1. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Revenue and Apportionment

Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Pittman-Robertson Revenues from Ammunition, Firearms, Pistols and

Revolvers, and Archery Equipment, FY2007-FY2016 ................................................................ 5

Figure 3. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Total Apportionments, FY1939-

FY2019 (top), and Apportionments by Program, FY2015-FY2019 (bottom) ............................. 7

Figure 4. Percentage Area and Average Annual Number of Hunting Licenses (Calculation

Years 2015-2019), by State ......................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5. Percentage Population in United States by State Based on 2010 Decennial

Census ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Tables

Table 1. Percentage of Revenues Attributable to Ammunition, Firearms, Pistols and

Revolvers, and Archery Equipment, FY2007-FY2016 ................................................................ 5

Table 2. Distribution of the Number of States Receiving Wildlife Restoration

Apportionment Percentages, FY2007-FY2019 ............................................................................ 9

Table A-1. Pittman-Robertson State Program Allocation Formula Criteria .................................. 21

Table A-2. Hunting Licenses Sold by State (Calculation Years 2015-FY2019) ............................ 23

Table B-1. Pittman-Robertson Total Apportionment, Under Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 10, by

State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019) ....................................................................................... 25

Table B-2. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration (Section 4(b)) Apportionment, by


Table B-3. Pittman-Robertson Basic Hunter Education (Section 4(c)) Apportionment, by




Table B-4. Pittman-Robertson Enhanced Hunter Education (Section 10) Apportionment,

by State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019) .................................................................................. 31

Appendixes

Appendix A. State Characteristics ................................................................................................. 21

Appendix B. Annual Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Apportionments by

State and Territory, FY2015-FY2019 ......................................................................................... 25

Contacts

Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 32


Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction Enacted in 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, now known as the Pittman-

Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (hereinafter referred to as Pittman-Robertson),1 provides

funding for states and territories to support projects that promote the conservation and restoration

of wild birds and mammals and their habitats and programs that provide hunter education and

safety training and opportunities.2

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior,

administers Pittman-Robertson as part of its Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program.

Revenues generated through excise taxes on pistols and revolvers, other firearms, ammunition,

bows, and other archery equipment provide the funding for Pittman-Robertson.3 After collection,

receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in

the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS for Pittman-Robertson

activities in the fiscal year following their collection without any further action by Congress.4 For

three programs within Pittman-Robertson, FWS apportions the funds directly among the states

and territories.5 All 50 states as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (collectively referred to as territories

in this report) are eligible to receive funding through Pittman-Robertson.6 Since its creation,

Pittman-Robertson has provided over $18.8 billion (in 2018 dollars; $12.2 billion in nominal

dollars) to states and territories.

This report provides an overview of the Pittman-Robertson state and territory programs that

support wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities, including a breakdown of

the various apportionment formulas and an analysis of related issues that may be of interest to

Congress. This report focuses on the formula-based programs within Pittman-Robertson that

provide funding for states and territories.

Revenues and Apportionments7 The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act apportions and allocates funding for five distinct

purposes:8

1 16 U.S.C. §§669-669k.

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR), Wildlife Restoration

Program—Overview, at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR.htm. Also, see 50 C.F.R. §

80.50.

3 16 U.S.C. §669b(a); 26 U.S.C. §§4161(b) and 4181.

4 For more information on excise taxes and additional background on the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act,

see CRS Report R45123, Guns, Excise Taxes, Wildlife Restoration, and the National Firearms Act.

5 Typically, FWS disburses funds to states’ fish and wildlife, or equivalent, agencies.

6 The District of Columbia is not eligible for apportionments under §§4(b), 4(c), or 10 of the Pittman-Robertson

Wildlife Restoration Act.

7 Data for revenues and apportionments are presented in nominal dollars, unless otherwise stated. When data are

presented in constant 2018 dollars, which is the case for historic data (pre-FY2015) and time series other than FY2015-

FY2019, nominal dollars have been converted to constant 2018 dollars using the GDP (Chained) Price Index column in

Table 10.1 (Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2023) from the Office of

Management and Budget, Historical Tables, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.

8 Each section can also be found in the U.S. Code: §4(a) at 16 U.S.C. §669c(a), §4(b) at 16 U.S.C. §669c(b), §4(c) at 16



1. program administration (Section 4(a));9

2. Wildlife Restoration (Section 4(b));

3. Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c));10

4. Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10); and

5. Multistate Conservation Grants (Section 11).11

Funds for three of these programs—Wildlife Restoration, Basic Hunter Education and Safety, and

Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants—are disbursed directly to states based on two

apportionment formulas (both hunter education and safety programs use the same formula). The

formulas take into account a state’s acreage, number of hunting licenses sold, and population

(Figure 1 and Table A-1). Territories are apportioned a set percentage of the funds for each

program. Washington, DC, does not receive funding under these programs. States and territories

can use their apportionments to support the federal share of wildlife and hunter and safety

projects that receive Pittman-Robertson funding.12 Additionally, Pittman-Robertson provides for

FWS to allocate non-formula based funding for multistate conservation grants and program

administration.13

U.S.C. §669c(c), §10 at 16 U.S.C. §669h-1, and §11 at 16 U.S.C. §669h-2.

9 Per 16 U.S.C. §669c(a), the amount set aside for program administration in a given year is determined by the amount

set aside in the preceding year, adjusted for inflation.

10 In 50 C.F.R. §80.50(b), this program is referred to as the Basic Hunter Education and Safety subprogram within the

Wildlife Restoration program. For the purposes of clarity, the Basic Hunter Education and Safety subprogram is

referred to as the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program within this report.

11 Per 16 U.S.C. §669h-2(c), Pittman-Robertson allocates $3 million per year for multistate conservation grants.

Eligible multistate conservation grantees include a state or group of states, FWS, and nongovernmental organizations.

12 The federal share for states is not to exceed 75% of the project cost (16 U.S.C. §§669e, 669g(b), and 669h-1). The

federal share for territories is outlined in 16 U.S.C. §669g-1, which states, “the Secretary [of the Interior] shall in no

event require any of said cooperating agencies [in the territories] to pay an amount which will exceed 25 per centum of

the cost of any project.” Further, 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d) provides limited waiver authority to waive cost-share

requirements for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands; Puerto Rico is not eligible for the waiver.

13 The act, under 16 U.S.C. §669b(b)(2), also provides that interest earned on monies in the Federal Aid to Wildlife

Restoration Fund shall be made available for allocation under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16

U.S.C. §4407). In addition, per 16 U.S.C. §669b(a)(1), funds that are unobligated within their allowed use window

under the Wilderness Restoration and Basic Hunter Education and Safety programs become available to carry out

provisions related to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§715 et seq.).



Figure 1. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Revenue and Apportionment

Structure

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), with information from 16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.



Revenues

Funding for programs authorized in Pittman-Robertson comes from excise taxes on certain

firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.14 Taxes on these items are imposed on the

manufacturer, producer, or importer of these goods. However, these taxes may result in higher

prices for the purchaser if part or all of the cost is passed on in the final purchase price. The tax

rates are 10% for pistols and revolvers, 11% for other firearms and ammunition, 11% for bows

and archery equipment, and a per shaft tax for arrows that is adjusted annually for inflation.15

Receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund

in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS in the fiscal year following

their collection without any further action by Congress.

Revenues generated from these excise taxes vary year by year both in total revenue (Figure 2)

and in revenue attributable to a specific item group (Table 1). From FY2007 through FY2016,16

FWS reported a total of $6.2 billion (in 2018 dollars) of revenue. Ammunition accounted for $2.1

billion (34%), firearms for $1.9 billion (32%), pistols and revolvers for $1.7 billion (27%), and

archery equipment for $0.5 billion (8%) of the total (in 2018 dollars). The revenues attributable to

½ the revenues generated from excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment

accounted for 17% of the total revenue.17 These revenues determined the amount available for

apportionments through the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program for the years from

FY2008 through FY2017 (the years following excise tax collection). The remaining revenues,

83% for FY2007 through FY20016, provide funds for the Wildlife Restoration and Enhanced

Hunter Education and Safety programs as well as the Multistate Conservation Grant program and

the set-aside for administration.

While the overall revenues generated determines the total amount available for apportionment in

the year following collection, the amount available for Basic Hunter Education and Safety

program (Section 4(c)) is solely based on revenues generated from pistols, revolvers, and archery

equipment. As such, amounts available for apportionment and disbursement are program specific

and fluctuate based on the total volume of shooting and archery equipment and the type of goods.

14 16 U.S.C. §669b(a).

15 26 U.S.C. §§4161(b) and 4181. Certain equipment is exempt from these excise taxes as laid out in 26 U.S.C.

§§4161(b) and 4182.

16 FY2007-FY2016 is the most recent period for which FWS has made revenue data available on the WSFR website.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Wildlife Restoration Excise Tax Receipts,

at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_ExciseTax.html.

17 17% is for the total revenues collected from FY2007 through FY2016. Each year may fluctuate from this average

based on actual revenues generated in that year.



Figure 2. Pittman-Robertson Revenues from Ammunition, Firearms, Pistols and

Revolvers, and Archery Equipment, FY2007-FY2016

Source: CRS, data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Wildlife

Restoration Excise Tax Receipts, at

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_ExciseTax.html.

Note: Nominal dollars have been converted to constant 2018 dollars using the GDP (Chained) Price Index

column in Table 10.1 (Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2023) from

the Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.

Table 1. Percentage of Revenues Attributable to Ammunition, Firearms, Pistols and

Revolvers, and Archery Equipment, FY2007-FY2016

Year Ammunition Firearms Pistols and Revolvers Archery Equipment

FY2007 30.5% 36.1% 22.9% 10.5%

FY2008 32.9% 34.5% 22.0% 10.5%

FY2009 34.2% 33.4% 25.8% 6.6%

FY2010 35.7% 28.4% 26.8% 9.1%

FY2011 33.8% 28.5% 26.4% 11.3%

FY2012 31.0% 32.2% 28.8% 8.0%

FY2013 31.0% 35.2% 27.5% 6.3%

FY2014 36.3% 30.4% 26.6% 6.7%

FY2015 36.6% 27.4% 26.0% 9.9%

FY2016 34.7% 30.3% 30.1% 4.8%

Source: CRS, data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Wildlife Restoration Excise Tax Receipts, at

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_ExciseTax.html.

State and Territory Apportionment

Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed $18.8 billion (in constant 2018 dollars; $12.2

billion in nominal dollars) for wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities to



states and territories (Figure 3).18 Annual apportionments have increased over time. However, in

recent years, there have been fluctuations of over $100 million between years. FWS disbursed

$3.8 billion (in nominal dollars)—an average of $751 million per year—to states and territories

for the Wildlife Restoration and the two Hunter Education and safety programs for FY2015

through FY2019 (Figure 3). Each year, individual states received between $4.5 million and $34.7

million, on average, in total apportionments for FY2015 through FY2019. American Samoa,

Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands each received

$1.3 million per year, on average, and Puerto Rico received $3.3 million per year, on average.19

Table B-1 provides the annual total apportionment for each state and territory for FY2015

through FY2019.

18 FWS, WSFR, 1939 through 2019 WR Apportionments (includes Hunter Ed), at

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WRApportionmentsHE-1939-2019.xlsx.

19 16 U.S.C. §669c(c) and 16 U.S.C. §669h-1 require that each of the territories receives one-sixth of 1% of funding

apportioned for the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs each year. 16 U.S.C. §669g-1 requires

that American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Marina Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands each receive

not more than one-sixth of 1% and that Puerto Rico receives not more than one-half of 1% of funding apportioned

through Pittman-Robertson. Typically, WSFR reports the wildlife restoration state apportionment (Section 4(b); 16

U.S.C. §669c(b)) and territorial apportionment (16 U.S.C. §669g-1) for wildlife restoration together, and the territories

receive an amount equal to 0.17% (all but Puerto Rico) and 0.5% (Puerto Rico) of the total state and territorial

apportionments for wildlife restoration.



Figure 3. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Total Apportionments,

FY1939-FY2019 (top), and Apportionments by Program, FY2015-FY2019 (bottom)

Source: CRS, data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, 1939

through 2019 WR Apportionments (includes Hunter Ed), at

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WRApportionmentsHE-1939-2019.xlsx.

Notes: Apportionments include total funding for Wildlife Restoration and Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education

and Safety programs. Totals do not include funding for program administration or multistate conservation grants.

Section 4(b) is also known as Wildlife Restoration, Section 4(c) is also known as Basic Hunter Education and

Safety, and Section 10 is also known as Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants. In the top figure, nominal

dollars have been converted to constant 2018 dollars using the GDP (Chained) Price Index column in Table 10.1

(Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2023) from the Office of

Management and Budget, Historical Tables, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.



Wildlife Restoration Program

The Wildlife Restoration program, also known as Section 4(b), comprises the largest funding

stream within Pittman-Robertson. From FY2015 through FY2019, annual state and territory

apportionments for the Wildlife Restoration Program averaged $606 million (81% of the $751

million, on average, disbursed directly to states and territories under Pittman-Robertson; see

Figure 3 and Table B-2). The total amount of funding available for the Wildlife Restoration

program for states is determined by deducting the amounts available for administration, the Basic

and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs (Sections 4(c) and 10, respectively),

multistate conservation grants, and territorial allocations for wildlife restoration activities from

the total amount of revenues generated from the excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, firearms,

ammunition, and archery equipment in the previous year. States and territories may use this

funding to pay the federal share of wildlife restoration projects.20 States and territories may use

their apportionments to pay for up to 75% of the total project cost; they are responsible for the

remaining cost of the project using non-Pittman-Robertson funds.21 Wildlife Restoration program

funds are available for use by the states and territories for the fiscal year in which they are

apportioned and the following fiscal year.22

FWS calculates the Wildlife Restoration apportionment for each state using a two-part formula,

with each part determining half of the amount apportioned.23 The formula is based on

the ratio of the area of a state compared with the total area of all 50 states and

the number of paid hunting licenses sold in a state compared with the total

number of paid hunting licenses sold in all 50 states.

The area of and number of licenses sold in the territories and Washington, DC, are not

included in the totals for all 50 states.

However, the minimum and maximum amount any state may receive is 0.5% and 5%,

respectively. Territorial apportionments are not formula based. Rather, the caps for territorial

apportionments for wildlife restoration activities are set in statute: Puerto Rico receives not more

than one-half of 1% (0.5%), and Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receive not more than one-sixth of 1%

(0.17%) of the total funds apportioned.24 Collectively, territories can receive slightly more than

1% of the allocated funding.

FWS calculates state area as the sum of land and inland water areas in a state.25 State area does

not include coastal, Great Lakes, or territorial waters. The area within an individual state is

compared to the total area in all 50 states (territorial area is not counted in the total). In total, the

United States contains 3.6 million square miles of land and inland water areas. States’ areas vary

20 States must propose and receive approval by the Secretary of the Interior for wildlife restoration projects for which

they are seeking Pittman-Robertson funding (16 U.S.C. §669e). States may propose projects individually or as part of a

comprehensive fish and wildlife resource management plan. 16 U.S.C. §669e states that the Secretary of the Interior

“shall approve only such comprehensive plans or projects as may be substantial in character and design.”

21 16 U.S.C. §669e.

22 16 U.S.C. §669b(a)(1).

23 16 U.S.C. §669c(b).

24 16 U.S.C. §669g-1.

25 Email from FWS Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to CRS, February 8, 2019. U.S. Census Bureau,

State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates, at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/state-area.html#n4.



from 0.03% (Rhode Island) to over 16% (Alaska) of the total U.S. area (Figure 4).26 States’ areas

do not change on an annual basis, though they may be updated periodically.27

The number of paid hunting-license holders used for the calculation in a given apportionment

year (also known as calculation year) is “the number of paid hunting-license holders in each State

in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such apportionment is made.”28 The

act does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state hunters; a hunting license purchased by

a nonresident would be equivalent under this formula to one purchased by a resident.29 For

calculation years 2015 to 2019, states collectively sold 15.4 million licenses per year, on average,

in the United States.30 During these five years, Rhode Island sold the fewest licenses per year

(8,404, on average) and Texas sold the most (1.1 million per year, on average) (Figure 4). Unlike

area, the number of hunting licenses sold varies from year to year (Table A-2). This annual

variation influences the apportionment level and can result in states receiving more or less in a

given year (subject to minimum and maximum requirements; Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of the Number of States Receiving Wildlife Restoration

Apportionment Percentages, FY2007-FY2019

Year <1% 1%-2% 2%-3% 3%-4% >4%

FY2007 9 21 11 7 2

FY2008 9 20 12 7 2

FY2009 9 20 13 6 2

FY2010 9 20 13 6 2

FY2011 9 20 13 6 2

FY2012 9 20 13 6 2

FY2013 9 17 16 6 2

FY2014 9 18 15 6 2

FY2015 9 20 13 6 2

FY2016 9 20 13 6 2

FY2017 9 19 14 6 2

FY2018 9 19 14 6 2

FY2019 9 19 16 4 2

26 The smallest state, Rhode Island, comprises 0.03% (1,215 square miles) of the total area of the United States and the

largest, Alaska, comprises 16.3% (589,945 square miles). Overall, 12 states each contain less than 1% of the land area,

22 contain between 1% and 2%, 9 between 2% and 3%, 3 between 3% and 4%, and the remaining 4 have greater than

4%.

27 FWS may update the land and inland water area values used in the apportionment calculation.

28 16 U.S.C. §669c(b).

29 Each state’s fish and game department, or equivalent, is responsible for reporting the number of hunting-license

holders. FWS posts the number of “Paid Hunting License Holders” through the WSFR Program, at

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm. Email from FWS Division of Congressional and

Legislative Affairs to CRS, February 8, 2019.

30 The calculation year is the year in which the apportionment is made. The actual year of sale is two years prior to the

apportionment year.



Source: CRS, with data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Restoration Program – Funding (WR Final

Apportionment FY2015-FY2019), at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_Funding.htm.

From FY2015 through FY2019, 8 states each received the minimum of 0.5% of the

apportionments for the Wildlife Restoration program ($3.0 million per year, on average), 40 states

received between the minimum and maximum, and 2 states received the maximum of 5% ($30.3

million). All 8 states receiving the minimum allocation are comparatively small (each consists of

less than 0.5% of the total U.S. area) and sold a comparatively small number of hunting licenses

in recent years (on average, each sold less than 0.5% of the U.S. total).31 The 2 states—Texas and

Alaska—that received the maximum apportionment of 5% are both large (7.4% and 16.3% of the

total U.S. area, respectively) but differed significantly in license sales in recent years (on average

7.4% and 0.7%, respectively).32

31 States receiving the minimum (0.5%) were Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

32 Hunting license data are for calculation years 2015 through 2019.

CRS-11

Figure 4. Percentage Area and Average Annual Number of Hunting Licenses (Calculation Years 2015-2019), by State

Source: CRS, with data from email from FWS Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to CRS, March 26, 2019, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and

Sport Fish Restoration Program, National Hunting License Data, at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm.

Note: The state area percentage was calculated by dividing the sum of land area and inland water area for each state by the total land and inland water area in all 50

states (total does not include territories or Washington, DC). The hunting licenses percentage was calculated by dividing the number of “Paid Hunting License Holders”

for each state for calculation years 2015 through 2019 by the total number of all “Paid Hunting License Holders” for all 50 states (total does not include territories or

Washington, DC). License data used to calculate apportionment for a given fiscal year (“calculation year”) are the number of licenses sold in the second fiscal year

preceding the apportionment year (16 U.S.C. §669c(b)). As such, license sales data used to calculate apportionments for 2015-2019 are from 2013-2017. An average is

presented for context as the annual number of licenses sold can vary from year to year; apportionments are determined based on a single year’s license sales. The

apportionments for territories (not shown) are not determined based on the percentage of area or hunting licenses. Instead, Puerto Rico receives not more than one-

half of 1% (0.5%), and Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receive not more than one-sixth of

1% (approximately 0.17%) of the total funds apportioned.



Hunter Education and Safety Programs

Two programs within Pittman-Robertson provide support to states and territories for hunter

education and safety projects: Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)) and Enhanced

Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10). The amount of funding available for state and

territorial apportionments for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program fluctuates based on

annual revenues deposited in the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund from excise taxes on

pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment (Figure 1). The Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety

Grants program receives a statutorily fixed amount of $8 million per year.33 Both programs use

the same apportionment structure, premised on the ratio of a state’s population to the total

population of the United States, as reported in the most recent decennial census. Statute dictates a

minimum (1%) and maximum (3%) state apportionment cap for both programs. Each of the five

eligible territories receives one-sixth of 1% (0.17%) of the total amount available for each

program. States and territories may use their apportionments to pay for up to 75% of the total cost

of a project.34

Based on the 2010 decennial census,35 21 states each contain less than 1% of the U.S. population.

Of the 29 remaining, 12 contain between 1% and 2%, 7 between 2% and 3%, 4 between 3% and

4%, and 6 more than 4%. The most populous state, California, contains 12.1% of the total U.S.

population. Figure 5 shows the percentage of the population for each state compared with the

total for all 50 states calculated from the 2010 U.S. decennial census.

Because apportionments are determined based on the decennial census, which only changes when

a new decennial census is conducted, the percentage of apportionment each state receives is

constant in the years between decennial censuses, though the actual apportionment will fluctuate

based on revenues generated by the excise tax on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment.36

Based on the 2010 decennial census, 21 states have received the minimum 1%, 3 states have

received between 1% and 2%, 9 states between 2% and 3%, and 17 states the 3% cap. The

territories have received 0.17% as required in statute.

33 16 U.S.C. §669h-1. Although statute sets the amount for Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety grants at $8 million

per year, the actual amount set aside has varied slightly since FY2013 due to sequestration pursuant to the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. §§900 et seq.).

34 16 U.S.C. §§669g and 669h-1(b). The nonfederal cost share can come from revenues generated by selling hunting

licenses, but it may not come from other federal grant programs.

35 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Residential Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1,

2018, at

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2018_PEPANNRES&src=pt.

36 After the 2010 decennial census, the apportionment percentages fluctuated in FY2010 and FY2011, but have

remained constant between FY2012-FY2019.

CRS-13

Figure 5. Percentage Population in United States by State Based on 2010 Decennial Census

Source: CRS with data from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Residential Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018, at

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2018_PEPANNRES&src=pt.

Notes: The allocations for territories (not shown) are not based on the percentage of population within a given territory. Instead, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receive one-sixth of 1% (approximately, 0.17%) of the funds apportioned for

both basic (Section 4(c)) and enhanced (Section 10) hunter education programs.



Basic Hunter Education and Safety Program (Section 4(c))

The total amount of funding available for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program is

equal to the revenue generated by half of the excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, and

archery equipment but not other firearms and ammunition.37 Apportionments for the Basic Hunter

Education and Safety program represent the second-largest component of Pittman-Robertson in

terms of funding. Between FY2015 and FY2019, the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program

apportioned an average of $136 million per year in total to states and territories (18.2% of the

$751 million total average annual apportionments disbursed to states and territories under

Pittman-Robertson apportionment programs; see Figure 3 and Table B-3). Between FY2015 and

FY2019, the majority of states received either the minimum or the maximum allocation

established in statute each year; 21 states received the minimum amount required by law (1%, or

$1.4 million per year, on average), and 17 states received the maximum (3%, or $4.1 million per

year, on average). Each territory received 0.17% ($227,473 per year, on average), as required by

statute. States may use funding under this program to pay the federal share of the “costs of a

hunter safety program and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges, as

part of such program.”38 Basic Hunter Education and Safety program funds are available for use

by states and territories for the fiscal year in which they are apportioned and the following fiscal

year.39

Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants Program (Section 10)

Congress passed legislation to add the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program

(also known as Section 10) to Pittman-Robertson in 2000.40 Since FY2003, $8.0 million has been

set aside annually for the program for firearm and bow hunter education and safety grants.

Pittman-Robertson states that the allowed uses for these grants are determined based on whether a

state or territory has “used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) [Section

4(c)] of this title for the fiscal year.”41 If a state or territory has not used all the funds apportioned

to it under the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program, it may use monies apportioned under

the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program for the enhancement of

hunter education programs, hunter and firearm safety programs, and hunter

development programs;

interstate coordination, hunter education, and shooting range programs;

bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development; and

construction and updating of firearm and archery shooting ranges.42

37 16 U.S.C. §669c(c).

38 16 U.S.C. §669g(b).

39 16 U.S.C. §669b(a)(1).

40 16 U.S.C. §669h-1; P.L. 106-408. Under the amended law, $7.5 million was set aside for the Enhanced Hunter

Education and Safety Grants Program in FY2001 and FY2002. Starting in FY2003, the amount increased to $8 million.

The amount set aside for Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants has varied slightly since FY2013 due to

sequestration pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. §§900 et

seq.). Also, pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, starting in FY2014, sequestered

funds have been made available for inclusion in apportionments in years after their sequestration.

41 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(a).

42 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(a)(1)(A).



If a state or territory has used all of its Basic Hunter Education and Safety program

apportionment, it may use its Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants apportionment for

any purpose authorized by Pittman-Robertson.43

FWS annually apportions and disburses funding to states and territories under the Enhanced

Hunter Education and Safety Grants program (Figure 3 and Table B-4). For FY2015 to FY2019,

each state received between 1% ($80,160 per year, on average) and 3% ($240,480 per year, on

average) of the total amount apportioned for these grants. Each eligible territory received 0.17%

($13,360 per year, on average) of the total Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants

program apportionments. Because both hunter education programs use the same distribution

formula, apportionments for the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program follow

the same pattern as apportionments for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program. Unlike

the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program, Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grant

program funds are available for use by states and territories only for the fiscal year in which they

are apportioned.44

Issues for Congress Members of Congress have routinely introduced legislation to amend Pittman-Robertson.45 In

particular, Congress has considered issues related to eligible uses of state and territorial

apportionments, the funding structure and funding sources for the program, and the

apportionment formulas.

Eligible Uses

In recent Congresses, some Members have introduced several bills that would amend the way

states and territories are able to spend their apportionments. Some bills have proposed amending

Pittman-Robertson to allow additional uses, such as hunter recruitment and retention; others have

proposed modifying the federal share and eligible uses of funds for existing or related activities,

such as for public target ranges. Some Members introduced multiple bills for both purposes in

recent Congresses, including in the 115th and 116th Congresses.

Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion

Several bills in the 115th Congress would have allowed and in the 116th Congress would allow

states to use funds provided through Pittman-Robertson to promote hunting and recreational

shooting, recruitment and retention of hunters and shooters, and public relations.46 According to

the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the number of

hunters in the United States declined by 16% (2.2 million individuals) compared to the similar

survey in 2011 (from 13.7 million in 2011 to 11.5 million in 2016).47 These bills would allow

43 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(a)(1)(B).

44 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(c)(1).

45 Congress has not substantially amended Pittman-Robertson since the 106th Congress (P.L. 106-408 and P.L. 106-

553). Since the 106th Congress, Section 3 (16 U.S.C. §669b) has been amended twice (P.L. 109-75 and P.L. 114-113)

to extend the date after which interest earned on the fund shall be available for apportionment under Pittman-Robertson

in addition to allocation under the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (16 U.S.C. §4407). See Figure 1.

46 For example, H.R. 877 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 2591 and S. 1613 in the 115th Congress. H.R. 2591 passed the

House.

47 FWS, 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, October 2018, p. 6,



states to use funds currently provided for the Wildlife Restoration, Basic Hunter Education and

Safety, and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants programs for hunter and recreational

shooter recruitment and retention.48 In addition, they would create a funding mechanism for the

Secretary of the Interior to use for recruitment and retention purposes at the national level.

Currently, Pittman-Robertson prohibits the use of Wildlife Restoration program apportionments

for public relations related to wildlife management activities.49 These proposals would remove

this prohibition.

Proponents of this type of legislation have argued that these bills would provide states with

flexibility to use Pittman-Robertson apportionments to support recruitment efforts that would

promote participation in hunting and shooting sports.50 They contend there is a need to attract and

retain hunters and recreational shooters, which, in turn, could increase excise tax revenues that

support Pittman-Robertson. Stakeholders also point out that wildlife restoration would remain the

primary purpose of the act even if amended.51 Other stakeholders have raised the concern that

these bills would diminish wildlife restoration activities by allowing states to use funds currently

apportioned for wildlife restoration purposes for recruitment and retention.52

Shooting Ranges

Other legislation has been introduced, including in the 115th and 116th Congresses, that would

change the terms under which states may use Pittman-Robertson allocations for projects related to

the construction and expansion of public target ranges.53 Currently, Pittman-Robertson allows

states to use funds apportioned under the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program (Section

4(c)) for the “construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges.”54 Funds

apportioned under the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program (Section 10) may

be used for “enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf.

48 These bills would amend Pittman-Robertson to include a definition for hunter recruitment and recreational shooter

recruitment and would allow states to use funds for marketing, education, range construction, education related to the

role of hunting and shooting for conservation, and other activities determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

49 16 U.S.C. §669g.

50 For example, see Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s

Needs Act of 2017, at http://congressionalsportsmen.org/policies/federal/modernizing-the-pittman-robertson-fund.

51 These bills would allow for funds provided under both Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs to

be used for recruitment and retention. In addition, up to 25% of funding apportioned for the Wildlife Restoration

program over any five-fiscal-year period could also be used for recruitment and retention. The remainder of funding for

wildlife restoration (at least 75% in a given five-year period) still would be for wildlife restoration projects, as currently

provided. For example, see Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, “U.S. House Passes the Modernizing the

Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s Needs Act,” September 14, 2018, at

https://www.fishwildlife.org/landing/blog/us-house-passes-modernizing-pittman-robertson-fund-tomorrows-needs-act.

52 For example, see John E. McDonald, Jr., the Wildlife Society, testimony submitted to U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, regarding H.R. 4647 and H.R. 2591, February 15,

2018, at http://wildlifeorg9.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/0222_TWS-News_TWS-Testimony-funding-

bills.pdf. For the five-year period from FY2015 through FY2019, the wildlife restoration apportionments through

Section 4(b) (16 U.S.C. §669c(b)) of Pittman-Robertson totaled $3.03 billion.

53 See, for example, S. 94 in the 116th Congress and S. 593 and H.R. 788 in the 115th Congress. In addition, similar

legislative language has been included in several broad natural resource bills, including S. 47, as introduced (S. 47 was

enacted as P.L. 116-9, but as enacted, it did not contain the section that would have amended Pittman-Robertson), in

the 116th Congress and S. 733, H.R. 4489, and H.R. 3668 in the 115th Congress.

54 16 U.S.C. §669g(b).



ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges.”55

However, both programs have a 75% cap for the federal share of projects supported by Pittman-

Robertson funding. All of the proposals in the 115th and 116th Congress to amend the eligibility of

activities related to shooting ranges would

allow states and territories to use their Basic Hunter Education and Safety

program apportionments for land acquisition, expansion, and construction related

to a target range, rather than solely for construction, operation, and maintenance

of a range;

allow states and territories to use up to 10% of funds apportioned to them through

the Wildlife Restoration program to supplement apportionments for the Enhanced

Hunter Education and Safety Grants program to be used for land acquisition,

expansion, and construction related to a target range;56

allow states and territories to use their apportionments to pay for up to 90% of

the total cost of a project related to a shooting range, instead of the current 75%

federal cost-share cap; and

extend the obligation and expenditure window of Enhanced Hunter Education

and Safety Grants program apportionments used for shooting ranges to up to five

fiscal years from the current window (the fiscal year for which they were

apportioned).57

According to their authors, these bills would address a stated decline in the availability of public

target ranges and would provide increased opportunity for target practice at public shooting

ranges.58 Some proponents have further argued that this type of legislation would allow the use of

more funds to provide the public with opportunities to “embrace hunting and shooting sports,”

which could lead to economic benefits.59 Some proponents also contend that this legislation

would make it easier for states to use federal funding, because it would lower the state matching

requirement from at least 25% to 10% for target range-related projects and extend the funding

window for certain funds. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that this legislation would

allow states to use funding for target range-purposes that otherwise would be available for

wildlife restoration activities under Section 4(b).60

55 16 U.S.C. §669h-1.

56 For the five-year period from FY2015 through FY2019, $606 million was apportioned for allocation to states for

wildlife restoration under Section 4(b) per year, on average.

57 16 U.S.C. §669h-1(c).

58 For example, S. 94 in the 116th Congress states (in §2(a)(3)), “the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal

land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including continued population growth and development near former

ranges.”

59 For example, see Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Target Practice Marksmanship Training Support Act, at

http://congressionalsportsmen.org/policies/federal/target-practice-marksmanship-training-support-act, and National

Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., “NSSF Applauds Bipartisan Introduction of Target And Marksmanship Training

Support Act of 2017 in the Senate,” press release, March 9, 2017, at https://www.nssf.org/nssf-applauds-bipartisan-

introduction-of-target-and-marksmanship-training-support-act-of-2017-in-the-senate/.

60 For example, see Ceasefire Oregon, S. 593 Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, at

https://www.ceasefireoregon.org/bills/target-practice-and-marksmanship-training-support-act/.



Funding Sources and Structure

Under current law, the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund receives revenues generated

through an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.61 Because Pittman-

Robertson funding is entirely reliant on revenues from these taxes, it is subject to spending

patterns on these items and can fluctuate with the markets for these goods.62 In addition, although

firearm and archery equipment owners, hunters, and recreational shooters generate the funds used

by Pittman-Robertson, many stakeholders contend that the act’s wildlife restoration benefits

accrue to the American public at large (this is often referred to as user-pay, public-benefit). Both

the potential for market-based fluctuation of the excise tax structure and the public benefit nature

of Pittman-Robertson have led some stakeholders to propose amending the act to include a

funding source that they argue is more stable and not solely reliant on hunters and recreational

shooters.

Congress has structured revenue sources for Pittman-Robertson so that those who recreate with

firearms or bows contribute to funding that is used to maintain and preserve wildlife and hunter

safety programs. Upon enactment of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, in 1937,

Congress only included revenues generated from excise taxes on firearms (not including pistols

and revolvers) and shells and cartridges.63 In debating this act, some Members stated that taxes

imposed on sporting arms and ammunition should be used to benefit wildlife restoration.64 In

1970, Congress enacted legislation to deposit revenues from an excise tax on pistols and

revolvers into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund rather than into the general fund of

the Treasury, into which they were being deposited.65 The purpose of this legislation was to

increase revenues available to support wildlife restoration and programs for hunter safety.66

Congress further amended the revenue sources in 1972, providing that an excise tax on bows and

arrows, also created in the same law, also be deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife

Restoration Fund.67 This inclusion provided that archers also contribute to the benefits provided

by the act.68

The concept of providing more stable and diversified funds for Pittman-Robertson is not new, and

both stakeholders and Congress have addressed this issue on several occasions. For example,

some stakeholders have suggested that given the public benefit nature of Pittman-Robertson, an

excise tax should be imposed on other categories of goods and services related to outdoor

61 16 U.S.C. §669b(a).

62 For more information on the excise taxes related to Pittman-Robertson, see CRS Report R45123, Guns, Excise

Taxes, Wildlife Restoration, and the National Firearms Act.

63 Law enacted Sept. 2, 1937, ch. 899, 50 Stat. 917.

64 S.Rept. 75-868 and H.Rept. 75-1572 state “One-of the cardinal principles of conservationists has always been that

moneys taken in by government agencies from wildlife resources, sportsmen's license fees, etc., should be spent in the

conservation and maintenance of wildlife species. This bill now before Congress applies to the Federal Government

this principle which has long been in successful operation in the States and provides for its equitable distribution of this

revenue to the 48 States in cooperative projects with the Federal Government.”

65 P.L. 91-503.

66 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marines and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife

Conservation, Hearing on H.R. 1048 and H.R. 12475, 91st Cong., 1st sess., September 18-19, 1969, Serial No. 91-11.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment,

Hearing on S. 670, S. 2311, S. 3860, S. 3927, S. 3962, and H.R. 12475, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., September 9, 1970,

Serial No. 91-92. Also, H.Rept. 91-1272 and S.Rept. 91-1289.

67 P.L. 92-558.

68 H.Rept. 92-1492 and S.Rept. 92-1305.



recreation (e.g., backpacks, bicycles, climbing gear, and sport utility vehicles, among other

items).69 This proposal—sometimes referred to as a backpack tax—has spurred an ongoing debate

for several decades. Proponents have contended that it would be fairer for all users, not just

hunters and shooters, to support wildlife conservation and restoration and that broadening the tax

base could raise more revenue for restoration.70 Conversely, opponents have suggested that the

proposal would place an untenable burden on the outdoor industry, leading to fewer sales and

making items prohibitively expensive for some stakeholders, and that it could deter individuals

from enjoying the outdoors.71

Congress has not enacted legislation to broaden the excise tax base supporting Pittman-Robertson

beyond firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. However, in FY2001, Congress amended

Pittman-Robertson to include an additional subaccount within the Federal Aid to Wildlife

Restoration Fund, the Wildlife Restoration and Conservation Account, to provide supplemental

funding for wildlife restoration and conservation.72 In the same law that created the subaccount,

Congress appropriated $50 million to the subaccount “for the development, revision, and

implementation of wildlife conservation and restoration plans and programs.”73 Congress

appropriated funding to this subaccount only in FY2001.

In recent Congresses, including the 115th Congress, some Members have introduced legislation

that would have amended Pittman-Robertson to repurpose the subaccount.74 These bills would

have transferred up to $1.3 billion per year into the subaccount from revenues deposited into the

Treasury under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.75 These funds

would have been available for states and territories for a variety of conservation and restoration

activities.

In the 116th Congress, Congress may continue to consider alternate funding sources for Pittman-

Robertson through existing or new mechanisms. Proponents have argued that additional funds

from alternate sources would bolster restoration and conservation activities and provide a secure

source of funding for Pittman-Robertson.76 Some stakeholders also have stated that a bill

authorizing such alternate funding sources could provide additional resources for federal agencies

or tribal partners to implement the conservation of threatened and endangered species, among

69 For example, see Dan Dewitt, “The Backpack Tax Debate,” Blue Ridge Outdoors, October 1, 2018, at

https://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/politics/the-backpack-tax-debate/.

70 For example, see Frederick Reimers, “Put Your Money Where Your Fun Is,” Outside, March 10, 2017 at

https://www.outsideonline.com/2156701/put-your-money-where-your-fun.

71 For example, see Outdoor Industry Association, “Where We Stand on the ‘Backpack Tax,’” March 10, 2017, at

https://outdoorindustry.org/article/where-we-stand-on-the-backpack-tax/.

72 P.L. 106-553, §§901-902. 16 U.S.C. §669c includes two sections labeled §c. The first provides for the Basic Hunter

Education and Safety program; the second provides for the apportionment formula structure for the Wildlife

Restoration and Conservation Account.

73 P.L. 106-553, §§901-902.

74 S. 3223 and H.R. 4647, both introduced in the 115th Congress, would have provided for up to $1.3 billion to be

deposited into the subaccount. However, S. 3223 would have required these funds to be subject to appropriations,

whereas H.R. 4647 would have provided these funds without further appropriations.

75 Specifically, revenues would be transferred from deposits under §9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43

U.S.C. §1338) and §35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. §191).

76 For example, see National Wildlife Federation, Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, at https://www.nwf.org/Our-

Work/Wildlife-Conservation/Policy/Recovering-Americas-Wildlife-Act.



other concerns.77 However, Congress may consider if providing funding for conservation and

restoration under Pittman-Robertson could affect other potential uses of federal funds.

Apportionment Formulas

In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman-

Robertson’s apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under

the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting

licenses (see “State and Territory Apportionment” above), whereas territories are allocated

funding based on a set percentage or percentage caps. For the Wildlife Restoration program,

states receive a minimum of 0.5% of the program’s total apportionment, Puerto Rico receives not

more than 0.5%, and each of the remaining four eligible territories receives not more than

0.17%.78 For both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs, states receive

at least 1% of the total apportionments and territories receive 0.17% of the apportionments.79

Under current law, Washington, DC, does not receive funding through any of these programs.

However, in FY2001, Washington, DC, received funding through the Wildlife Conservation and

Restoration Account.80

Congress may consider issues related to apportionment formulas, including topics related to

parity between states, territories, and others. It also may consider amending the apportionment

structures, including minimum and maximum allocations, in general. The current structure is the

result of multiple congressional actions since the original enactment in 1937. Through these

actions, Congress has added and modified apportionment formula and eligibility. Some

stakeholders have expressed concern over the discrepancy between the minimum apportionment

to states and the set percentage provided to territories; they contend there should be greater parity

between states and territories.81 Other stakeholders have suggested that tribes also should be

eligible to receive allocations under Pittman-Robertson programs.82

77 For example, see Defenders of Wildlife, “‘Recovering America’s Wildlife Act’ Needs Improvement,” February 15,

2018, at https://newsroom.defenders.org/recovering-americas-wildlife-act-needs-improvement/.

78 16 U.S.C. §§669c(b) and 669g-1.

79 16 U.S.C. §669c(c).

80 P.L. 106-553, §§901-902 (16 U.S.C. §669c(c): Apportionment of Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account).

Under the act, states received at least 1% but not more than 5%; Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia each received

not more than 0.5%; and Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands each received not more than 0.25% of the total apportionment made through the Wildlife Conservation

and Restoration Account. See “Funding Sources and Structure” for more information on this subaccount.

81 For example, see H.R. 1809 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 5875 in the 115th Congress.

82 For example, see National Congress of American Indians, “Include Tribes as Eligible for Funding Under the Federal

Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act,” Resolution #PHX-16-028, October

2016, at http://www.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/include-tribes-as-eligible-for-funding-under-the-federal-aid-in-

wildlife-restoration-act-and-the-federal-aid-in-sport-fish-restoration-act.



Appendix A. State Characteristics83

Table A-1. Pittman-Robertson State Program Allocation Formula Criteria

Wildlife Restoration Hunting Education and Safety

State Area (sq. miles)a Hunting Licensesb Populationc

Alabama 51,704 541,146 4,779,736

Alaska 589,945 111,157 710,231

Arizona 113,990 271,139 6,392,017

Arkansas 53,179 324,664 2,915,918

California 158,613 282,994 37,253,956

Colorado 104,094 289,852 5,029,196

Connecticut 5,013 39,623 3,574,097

Delaware 2,040 17,633 897,934

Florida 58,652 185,237 18,801,310

Georgia 58,926 591,402 9,687,653

Hawaii 6,465 10,737 1,360,301

Idaho 83,569 276,134 1,567,582

Illinois 56,339 312,025 12,830,632

Indiana 36,187 271,410 6,483,802

Iowa 56,273 221,861 3,046,355

Kansas 82,278 246,606 2,853,118

Kentucky 40,408 349,814 4,339,367

Louisiana 47,766 389,440 4,533,372

Maine 33,156 165,196 1,328,361

Maryland 10,475 123,709 5,773,552

Massachusetts 8,285 58,066 6,547,629

Michigan 58,540 728,530 9,883,640

Minnesota 84,390 572,041 5,303,925

Mississippi 47,693 282,603 2,967,297

Missouri 69,707 498,215 5,988,927

Montana 147,040 238,002 989,415

Nebraska 77,348 178,768 1,826,341

Nevada 110,572 67,797 2,700,551

New Hampshire 9,280 59,135 1,316,470

New Jersey 7,790 74,425 8,791,894

83 U.S. territories are not included in this table because their apportionments under Pittman-Robertson are set in statute

rather than determined by formula.



Wildlife Restoration Hunting Education and Safety

State Area (sq. miles)a Hunting Licensesb Populationc

New Mexico 121,590 102,828 2,059,179

New York 49,115 559,358 19,378,102

North Carolina 52,670 573,514 9,535,483

North Dakota 70,698 143,491 672,591

Ohio 41,335 394,076 11,536,504

Oklahoma 69,899 468,681 3,751,351

Oregon 97,056 277,230 3,831,074

Pennsylvania 45,306 973,339 12,702,379

Rhode Island 1,215 8,404 1,052,567

South Carolina 31,124 208,552 4,625,364

South Dakota 77,116 230,419 814,180

Tennessee 42,144 711,771 6,346,105

Texas 266,848 1,132,306 25,145,561

Utah 84,897 226,363 2,763,885

Vermont 9,616 71,304 625,741

Virginia 40,772 276,078 8,001,024

Washington 68,170 181,522 6,724,540

West Virginia 24,230 218,853 1,852,994

Wisconsin 56,154 707,189 5,686,986

Wyoming 97,813 131,057 563,626

Total 3,617,485 15,375,694 308,143,815

Source: CRS, with data from email from FWS Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to CRS, March

26, 2019, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, National Hunting License

Data, at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm.

Notes: The Wildlife Restoration program apportionment is calculated using two components. One-half of the

apportionment is based on the ratio that the area of each state bears to the total area of all states, and one-half

is based on the ratio of the number of paid hunting license holders in each state to the total number of hunting

license holders in all states in the second fiscal year preceding the year of the apportionment (16 U.S.C.

§669c(b)). Both Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs apportionments are determined

based on the ratio that the population of each state bears to the population of all states (16 U.S.C. §§669c(c) and

669h-1). For each program, there are minimum and maximum apportionment caps. Territories are not included

in the table because they are allocated funding based on set percentages or caps, as laid out in statute for each

program. Additionally, territorial area, population, and hunting licenses are not included in the totals used to

calculate state apportionments. Washington, DC, does not receive funding under the Wildlife Restoration or

Hunter Safety and Education programs.

a. Area: State area is the sum of land area and inland water area for each state included.

b. Hunting Licenses: The annual average number of “Paid Hunting License Holders” for calculation years 2015

through 2019. The average is provided for context; however, annual apportionments are based on a single

year’s sales (see Table A-2 for individual year data).

c. Population: State population is determined using the most recent decennial census. Current data are from

the 2010 census.



Table A-2. Hunting Licenses Sold by State (Calculation Years 2015-FY2019)

State 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Alabama 507,926 565,139 548,829 547,905 535,933 2,705,732

Alaska 107,131 106,916 108,487 108,921 124,330 555,785

Arizona 200,092 215,444 324,553 305,214 310,392 1,355,695

Arkansas 326,779 328,542 340,200 326,559 301,240 1,623,320

California 283,539 287,147 284,069 280,967 279,248 1,414,970

Colorado 281,201 284,773 290,064 294,319 298,901 1,449,258

Connecticut 42,535 42,924 39,488 37,489 35,681 198,117

Delaware 16,786 17,369 18,323 17,847 17,839 88,164

Florida 175,349 181,040 190,526 190,232 189,038 926,185

Georgia 395,219 604,863 620,740 651,910 684,277 2,957,009

Hawaii 10,537 11,113 10,831 10,617 10,585 53,683

Idaho 258,547 266,007 273,887 286,947 295,281 1,380,669

Illinois 320,765 319,588 314,135 306,024 299,614 1,560,126

Indiana 278,322 280,952 270,875 267,447 259,453 1,357,049

Iowa 219,798 217,282 221,231 223,232 227,761 1,109,304

Kansas 239,335 245,647 245,779 251,390 250,877 1,233,028

Kentucky 340,902 356,500 353,098 352,408 346,161 1,749,069

Louisiana 370,528 386,310 395,322 398,808 396,233 1,947,201

Maine 165,781 168,890 166,051 163,191 162,065 825,978

Maryland 124,187 129,376 123,833 120,334 120,814 618,544

Massachusetts 56,797 59,669 57,973 57,921 57,970 290,330

Michigan 763,618 767,896 719,850 706,101 685,185 3,642,650

Minnesota 592,125 572,203 564,694 568,057 563,127 2,860,206

Mississippi 218,161 307,747 298,637 300,146 288,325 1,413,016

Missouri 496,583 502,652 499,489 498,319 494,030 2,491,073

Montana 229,317 239,542 240,702 253,412 227,039 1,190,012

Nebraska 175,591 174,493 175,468 183,056 185,231 893,839

Nevada 65,606 66,950 67,906 68,744 69,780 338,986

New Hampshire 59,068 61,556 59,318 58,099 57,632 295,673

New Jersey 74,067 75,006 75,248 74,794 73,009 372,124

New Mexico 97,103 99,328 103,719 107,331 106,661 514,142

New York 535,915 544,229 572,992 579,043 564,612 2,796,791

North Carolina 545,032 570,495 573,712 585,766 592,564 2,867,569

North Dakota 148,793 145,538 140,243 141,553 141,328 717,455

Ohio 404,997 404,081 394,598 390,268 376,435 1,970,379

Oklahoma 419,445 421,681 431,077 529,651 541,553 2,343,407



State 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Oregon 264,102 259,000 262,822 264,684 335,543 1,386,151

Pennsylvania 969,633 980,613 984,637 975,650 956,163 4,866,696

Rhode Island 8,624 8,978 8,797 8,209 7,414 42,022

South Carolina 206,397 212,461 212,621 210,369 200,912 1,042,760

South Dakota 244,182 221,979 223,394 233,215 229,323 1,152,093

Tennessee 727,229 734,733 717,256 700,600 679,038 3,558,856

Texas 1,060,455 1,132,099 1,148,765 1,157,779 1,162,430 5,661,528

Utah 207,331 217,471 226,225 236,656 244,131 1,131,814

Vermont 72,930 74,219 71,807 69,943 67,619 356,518

Virginia 276,660 282,132 277,281 276,019 268,300 1,380,392

Washington 180,829 182,251 182,149 183,063 179,316 907,608

West Virginia 220,811 222,686 219,990 217,123 213,656 1,094,266

Wisconsin 717,381 719,110 700,843 706,400 692,209 3,535,943

Wyoming 133,568 132,141 127,198 130,304 132,075 655,286

Total 14,837,609 15,408,761 15,479,732 15,614,036 15,538,333 76,878,471

Source: CRS, with data from email from FWS Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to CRS, March

26, 2019, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, National Hunting License

Data: Calculation Years 2014-2018, at https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm



Appendix B. Annual Pittman-Robertson Wildlife

Restoration Act Apportionments by State and

Territory, FY2015-FY2019

Table B-1. Pittman-Robertson Total Apportionment, Under Sections 4(b), 4(c), and

10, by State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019)

(in nominal dollars)

State FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Total

Alabama 19,393,471 17,265,640 19,083,685 19,360,421 16,219,453 91,322,670

Alaska 34,625,771 29,532,768 32,969,429 33,455,771 28,219,617 158,803,356

American

Samoa

1,347,460 1,158,529 1,299,808 1,328,563 1,122,415 6,256,775

Arizona 20,405,240 17,707,564 21,858,466 22,080,003 18,738,872 100,790,145

Arkansas 13,962,632 11,711,463 13,272,093 13,221,723 10,826,338 62,994,249

California 26,808,714 22,913,160 25,602,136 26,037,993 21,988,681 123,350,684

Colorado 20,211,205 17,257,494 19,418,582 19,872,123 16,885,597 93,645,001

Connecticut 5,777,433 5,038,584 5,702,335 5,901,190 4,998,992 27,418,534

Delaware 4,767,143 4,128,477 4,652,531 4,785,824 4,048,853 22,382,828

Washington,

DC

— — — — — —

Florida 14,179,497 12,264,952 13,978,911 14,351,398 12,111,926 66,886,684

Georgia 18,777,937 19,312,410 22,240,949 23,213,465 20,190,369 103,735,130

Guam 1,347,460 1,158,529 1,299,808 1,328,563 1,122,415 6,256,775

Hawaii 4,767,143 4,128,477 4,652,531 4,785,824 4,083,070 22,417,045

Idaho 15,584,921 13,299,962 15,029,712 15,474,320 13,238,818 72,627,733

Illinois 16,981,518 14,452,361 16,115,520 16,335,080 13,732,772 77,617,251

Indiana 13,982,134 11,993,245 13,302,902 13,573,699 11,384,459 64,236,439

Iowa 11,945,027 10,069,154 11,333,962 11,515,178 9,811,372 54,674,693

Kansas 15,059,994 12,833,780 14,334,290 14,646,057 12,381,483 69,255,604

Kentucky 14,369,716 12,432,857 13,914,162 14,127,290 11,874,003 66,718,028

Louisiana 15,878,957 13,708,874 15,525,062 15,884,383 13,432,035 74,429,311

Maine 8,407,092 7,162,578 7,964,547 8,055,283 6,801,597 38,391,097

Maryland 7,674,842 6,742,718 7,545,171 7,754,551 6,592,492 36,309,774

Massachusetts 7,666,174 6,740,034 7,664,947 7,986,372 6,775,277 36,832,804

Michigan 26,568,621 22,443,457 24,198,482 24,296,525 20,242,515 117,749,600

Minnesota 24,907,623 20,719,919 22,971,924 23,400,370 19,741,200 111,741,036

Mississippi 11,014,940 10,729,644 11,956,397 12,144,757 10,102,194 55,947,932

Missouri 21,843,658 18,598,232 20,756,674 21,117,103 17,819,728 100,135,395




Montana 21,552,756 18,441,964 20,611,646 21,131,270 17,468,080 99,205,716

N. Mariana

Islands

1,347,460 1,158,529 1,299,808 1,328,563 1,122,415 6,256,775

Nebraska 13,199,091 11,172,967 12,495,645 12,833,330 10,890,046 60,591,079

Nevada 14,315,511 12,234,352 13,697,843 13,948,153 11,795,554 65,991,413

New Hampshire 4,767,143 4,128,477 4,652,531 4,785,824 4,048,853 22,382,828

New Jersey 7,666,174 6,740,034 7,664,947 7,986,372 6,775,277 36,832,804

New Mexico 16,123,634 13,769,046 15,467,517 15,787,434 13,326,908 74,474,539

New York 20,837,603 17,702,363 20,341,226 20,862,345 17,470,049 97,213,586

North Carolina 21,315,164 18,446,736 20,734,869 21,338,737 18,198,167 100,033,673

North Dakota 11,935,140 10,085,485 11,170,517 11,377,784 9,616,313 54,185,239

Ohio 17,194,036 14,593,198 16,188,100 16,457,632 13,737,911 78,170,877

Oklahoma 18,677,008 15,826,672 17,845,424 19,907,732 17,143,599 89,400,435

Oregon 18,283,088 15,457,600 17,345,633 17,690,588 16,031,149 84,808,058

Pennsylvania 29,542,027 24,948,408 27,913,408 28,157,633 23,560,142 134,121,618

Puerto Rico 3,559,210 3,040,328 3,397,357 3,452,263 2,912,843 16,362,001

Rhode Island 4,767,143 4,128,477 4,652,531 4,785,824 4,048,853 22,382,828

South Carolina 10,776,814 9,311,672 10,497,258 10,678,793 8,941,843 50,206,380

South Dakota 14,620,621 12,010,444 13,394,017 13,775,104 11,599,587 65,399,773

Tennessee 23,852,672 20,400,396 22,484,134 22,544,767 18,764,908 108,046,877

Texas 37,524,802 32,144,324 35,981,845 36,656,319 30,946,041 173,253,331

Utah 14,645,168 12,569,415 14,206,094 14,616,342 12,480,803 68,517,822

Vermont 4,767,143 4,128,477 4,652,531 4,785,824 4,048,853 22,382,828

Virgin Islands 1,347,460 1,158,923 1,299,808 1,328,563 1,122,415 6,257,169

Virginia 14,436,495 12,399,343 13,854,774 14,176,335 11,914,111 66,781,058

Washington 15,239,993 13,098,081 14,726,685 15,120,458 12,756,164 70,941,381

West Virginia 8,622,897 7,314,107 8,126,275 8,209,596 6,898,259 39,171,134

Wisconsin 24,887,261 20,982,254 23,095,485 23,542,090 19,739,356 112,246,446

Wyoming 14,432,352 12,244,765 13,588,772 13,861,148 11,741,122 65,868,159

Total 808,492,189 695,141,699 780,031,696 797,160,652 673,586,164 3,754,412,400

Source: CRS, data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Restoration Program – Funding (WR Final


Note: Table includes values reported in nominal dollars not accounting for change in purchasing power.



Table B-2. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration (Section 4(b)) Apportionment, by

State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019)



Alabama 16,103,906 14,302,276 15,665,460 15,728,723 13,125,746 74,926,111

Alaska 33,176,254 28,226,990 31,463,221 31,855,497 26,856,405 151,578,367

American

Samoa

1,105,874 940,900 1,048,774 1,061,850 895,213 5,052,611

Arizona 16,056,692 13,790,229 17,339,842 17,279,181 14,649,236 79,115,180

Arkansas 12,513,115 10,405,685 11,765,885 11,621,449 9,463,126 55,769,260

California 22,460,166 18,995,825 21,083,512 21,237,171 17,899,045 101,675,719

Colorado 16,749,953 14,139,468 15,821,958 16,050,882 13,630,427 76,392,688

Connecticut 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

Delaware 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

Washington,

DC

— — — — — —

Florida 9,830,949 8,347,617 9,460,287 9,550,576 8,022,290 45,211,719

Georgia 14,429,389 15,395,075 17,722,325 18,412,643 16,100,733 82,060,165

Guam 1,105,874 940,900 1,048,774 1,061,850 895,213 5,052,611

Hawaii 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,719,858 15,192,056

Idaho 14,135,404 11,994,184 13,523,504 13,874,046 11,875,606 65,402,744

Illinois 12,632,970 10,535,026 11,596,896 11,534,258 9,643,136 55,942,286

Indiana 9,633,586 8,075,910 8,784,278 8,772,877 7,294,823 42,561,474

Iowa 10,495,510 8,763,376 9,827,754 9,914,904 8,448,160 47,449,704

Kansas 13,610,477 11,528,002 12,828,082 13,045,783 11,018,271 62,030,615

Kentucky 11,383,225 9,742,511 10,810,867 10,830,192 9,065,328 51,832,123

Louisiana 12,758,946 10,898,251 12,283,026 12,439,874 10,497,788 58,877,885

Maine 6,957,575 5,856,800 6,458,339 6,455,009 5,438,385 31,166,108

Maryland 3,701,301 3,163,203 3,416,221 3,367,742 2,855,534 16,504,001

Massachusetts 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

Michigan 22,220,073 18,526,122 19,679,858 19,495,703 16,152,879 96,074,635

Minnesota 21,257,294 17,431,565 19,178,826 19,370,387 16,308,209 93,546,281

Mississippi 9,565,423 9,423,866 10,450,189 10,544,483 8,738,982 48,722,943

Missouri 17,721,890 14,885,182 16,473,699 16,566,649 13,943,368 79,590,788

Montana 20,103,239 17,136,186 19,105,438 19,530,996 16,104,868 91,980,727

N. Mariana

Islands

1,105,874 940,900 1,048,774 1,061,850 895,213 5,052,611

Nebraska 11,749,574 9,867,189 10,989,437 11,233,056 9,526,834 53,366,090

Nevada 12,865,994 10,928,574 12,191,635 12,347,879 10,432,342 58,766,424




New Hampshire 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

New Jersey 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

New Mexico 14,674,117 12,463,268 13,961,309 14,187,160 11,963,696 67,249,550

New York 16,489,055 13,785,028 15,822,602 16,061,523 13,380,413 75,538,621

North Carolina 16,966,616 14,529,401 16,216,245 16,537,915 14,108,531 78,358,708

North Dakota 10,485,623 8,779,707 9,664,309 9,777,510 8,253,101 46,960,250

Ohio 12,845,488 10,675,863 11,669,476 11,656,810 9,648,275 56,495,912

Oklahoma 16,095,209 13,500,885 15,162,651 17,057,413 14,715,523 76,531,681

Oregon 15,646,421 13,082,388 14,605,848 14,779,696 13,551,469 71,665,822

Pennsylvania 25,193,479 21,031,073 23,394,784 23,356,811 19,470,506 112,446,653

Puerto Rico 3,317,624 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,837

Rhode Island 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

South Carolina 7,593,491 6,444,017 7,189,433 7,164,389 5,948,056 34,339,386

South Dakota 13,171,104 10,704,666 11,887,809 12,174,830 10,236,375 58,174,784

Tennessee 19,504,124 16,483,061 17,965,510 17,743,945 14,675,272 86,371,912

Texas 33,176,254 28,226,989 31,463,221 31,855,497 26,856,405 151,578,366

Utah 13,195,651 11,263,637 12,699,886 13,016,068 11,117,591 61,292,833

Vermont 3,317,626 2,822,699 3,146,323 3,185,550 2,685,641 15,157,839

Virgin Islands 1,105,874 941,294 1,048,774 1,061,850 895,213 5,053,005

Virginia 10,087,947 8,482,008 9,336,150 9,375,513 7,824,475 45,106,093

Washington 10,891,445 9,180,746 10,208,061 10,319,636 8,666,528 49,266,416

West Virginia 7,173,380 6,008,329 6,620,067 6,609,322 5,535,047 31,946,145

Wisconsin 20,973,296 17,456,409 19,028,444 19,221,052 16,058,431 92,737,632

Wyoming 12,982,835 10,938,987 12,082,564 12,260,874 10,377,910 58,643,170

Total 663,540,568 564,563,859 629,410,911 637,133,274 537,264,963 3,031,913,575






Table B-3. Pittman-Robertson Basic Hunter Education (Section 4(c))

Apportionment, by State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019)



Alabama 3,108,193 2,780,902 3,236,852 3,449,963 2,911,063 15,486,973

Alaska 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

American

Samoa

228,266 204,229 237,714 253,366 213,788 1,137,363

Arizona 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Arkansas 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

California 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Colorado 3,270,414 2,926,041 3,405,786 3,630,021 3,062,994 16,295,256

Connecticut 2,324,184 2,079,448 2,420,389 2,579,746 2,176,777 11,580,544

Delaware 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Washington,

DC

— — — — — —

Florida 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Georgia 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Guam 228,266 204,229 237,714 253,366 213,788 1,137,363

Hawaii 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Idaho 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Illinois 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Indiana 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Iowa 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Kansas 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Kentucky 2,821,828 2,524,695 2,938,633 3,132,106 2,642,859 14,060,121

Louisiana 2,947,987 2,637,566 3,070,013 3,272,140 2,761,018 14,688,724

Maine 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Maryland 3,754,457 3,359,116 3,909,866 4,167,287 3,516,339 18,707,065

Massachusetts 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Michigan 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Minnesota 3,449,066 3,085,882 3,591,834 3,828,317 3,230,317 17,185,416

Mississippi 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Missouri 3,894,512 3,484,428 4,055,719 4,322,743 3,647,511 19,404,913

Montana 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

N. Mariana

Islands

228,266 204,229 237,714 253,366 213,788 1,137,363

Nebraska 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Nevada 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189




New Hampshire 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

New Jersey 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

New Mexico 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

New York 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

North Carolina 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

North Dakota 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Ohio 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Oklahoma 2,439,450 2,182,582 2,540,424 2,707,685 2,284,732 12,154,873

Oregon 2,491,293 2,228,965 2,594,411 2,765,227 2,333,287 12,413,183

Pennsylvania 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Puerto Rico 228,266 204,229 237,714 253,366 213,788 1,137,363

Rhode Island 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

South Carolina 3,007,808 2,691,087 3,132,309 3,338,538 2,817,044 14,986,786

South Dakota 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Tennessee 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Texas 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Utah 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Vermont 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Virgin Islands 228,266 204,229 237,714 253,366 213,788 1,137,363

Virginia 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

Washington 4,108,788 3,676,135 4,278,864 4,560,582 3,848,196 20,472,565

West Virginia 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Wisconsin 3,698,166 3,308,750 3,851,243 4,104,807 3,463,616 18,426,582

Wyoming 1,369,597 1,225,378 1,426,288 1,520,194 1,282,732 6,824,189

Total 136,959,621 122,537,840 142,628,785 152,019,378 128,273,201 682,418,825






Table B-4. Pittman-Robertson Enhanced Hunter Education (Section 10)

Apportionment, by State and Territory (FY2015-FY2019)


State 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Alabama 181,372 182,462 181,373 181,735 182,644 909,586

Alaska 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

American

Samoa

13,320 13,400 13,320 13,347 13,414 66,801

Arizona 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Arkansas 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

California 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Colorado 190,838 191,985 190,838 191,220 192,176 957,057

Connecticut 135,623 136,437 135,623 135,894 136,574 680,151

Delaware 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Washington,

DC

— — — — — —

Florida 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Georgia 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Guam 13,320 13,400 13,320 13,347 13,414 66,801

Hawaii 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Idaho 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Illinois 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Indiana 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Iowa 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Kansas 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Kentucky 164,663 165,651 164,662 164,992 165,816 825,784

Louisiana 172,024 173,057 172,023 172,369 173,229 862,702

Maine 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Maryland 219,084 220,399 219,084 219,522 220,619 1,098,708

Massachusetts 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Michigan 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Minnesota 201,263 202,472 201,264 201,666 202,674 1,009,339

Mississippi 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Missouri 227,256 228,622 227,256 227,711 228,849 1,139,694

Montana 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

N. Mariana

Islands

13,320 13,400 13,320 13,347 13,414 66,801

Nebraska 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Nevada 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800



State 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

New Hampshire 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

New Jersey 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

New Mexico 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

New York 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

North Carolina 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

North Dakota 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Ohio 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Oklahoma 142,349 143,205 142,349 142,634 143,344 713,881

Oregon 145,374 146,247 145,374 145,665 146,393 729,053

Pennsylvania 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Puerto Rico 13,320 13,400 13,320 13,347 13,414 66,801

Rhode Island 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

South Carolina 175,515 176,568 175,516 175,866 176,743 880,208

South Dakota 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Tennessee 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Texas 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Utah 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Vermont 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Virgin Islands 13,320 13,400 13,320 13,347 13,414 66,801

Virginia 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

Washington 239,760 241,200 239,760 240,240 241,440 1,202,400

West Virginia 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Wisconsin 215,799 217,095 215,798 216,231 217,309 1,082,232

Wyoming 79,920 80,400 79,920 80,080 80,480 400,800

Total 7,992,000 8,040,000 7,992,000 8,008,000 8,048,000 40,080,000



Note: Table includes values reported in nominal dollars not accounting for change in purchasing power. The

variation in total annual apportionment is due to adjustments made pursuant to the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. §§900 et seq.).

Author Information

R. Eliot Crafton

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy


Congressional Research Service R45667 · VERSION 1 · NEW 34

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding ... · Pittman-Robertson Wildlife...

Documents

Transcript of Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding ... · Pittman-Robertson Wildlife...